Call to Action – Help Save BC’s Public Fishery

Discussion in 'Saltwater Fishing Forum' started by Admin, Mar 9, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    So I have not written my letter to the minister yet or the PMO's office. I'm trying to figure out if I should mention anything about the options because past letters I have wrote to the PMO and Minister they forwarded to a high level DFO director (Andrew Thomson). I don't want it to get lumped in with the pervious letters nor do I want the letter to get added to this current pile.

    So the question is should I mention the options or just voice my displeasure with addition closures and the damage it could do to the public fishery?

    and who should I address in it captain JT selfie face or the fisheries minister or should I send separate letters to them.
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
  2. Ryan A

    Ryan A Active Member

    Letter sent, my 4th. Hoping for a positive outcome
    searun likes this.
  3. ziggy

    ziggy Well-Known Member

    I think mentioning options is a positive move. It shows you’re willing to try and find a workable solution as opposed to simply complaining and pretending the problem doesn’t exist. I think admitting there are issues with salmon returns isn’t a problem, suggesting it’s all because of the public accessing its communal resource is. By identifying options you are calling into question DFO’s go to answer to everything, screw average Canadians and appease special interest groups.

    I’d sent mine to the Minister, the Opposition critic and my MP. Having said that I’m sure Elizabeth May, my MP, is just hoping I go away! Good luck Liz I’m going nowhere lol! In my latest letter I mentioned how frustrated I was and how I consider the erosion of the public’s access to the public’s fish as a major election issue!
    wildmanyeah likes this.
  4. SerengetiGuide

    SerengetiGuide Well-Known Member

    Much of it just isn’t science based. That’s what I’ve been pushing in my letters.
  5. ziggy

    ziggy Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I asked the Minister to publish what percentage of fish are caught by the general public. Obviously his Department must have an extremely accurate number and it must be extremely high if banning the public is all that’s needed to fix all the problems. Then again if the numbers they are using come from some ENGO’s playing scientist, as opposed to verifiable numbers from real qualified scientists, maybe DFO needs to have a hard look at itself!
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
  6. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Just a quick note: You want to be very careful getting into numbers.
    For yes, they exist. And yes, they are based on "science" from within the Department.
    But no, you won't like what they have to say.

  7. ziggy

    ziggy Well-Known Member

    You may well be right Nog, but I’d suggest the numbers they produce are at best estimates using questionable methology and at worst a wild ass guess in the abscence of hard facts. At any rate those numbers need to be made available and either challenged or accepted that’s a basic tenet of real science .Too much of this crap is hidden behind a bureaucratic wall of secrecy and a hope that the general public will accept that they must know what they are doing and avoid asking tough questions. Without actual numbers or even the ones they are using, how can there ever be a meaningful discussion?
    fishin solo and UkeeDreamin like this.
  8. SerengetiGuide

    SerengetiGuide Well-Known Member

    For the areas I fish I know the numbers would be favourable when it comes to upper Fraser stocks nog
  9. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    Thanks, I screwed up a bit...the difference in the model is 0.008% impact on Exploitation Rate (ER) between Option A & B.

    Each of us can take action. The biggest problem for the Public Fishery is we are essentially a push over. There is no realistic and credible threat to government that the public (rec anglers) will rise up and create a political wave of action. We are an easy dog for them to kick around because we don't ever bite back.

    Well, time for each of us to bite back. If everyone writes a letter to Fisheries Minister Wilkinson and the Prime Minister (more than the 900 or so earlier) that is a solid way we can send a political risk message. Personal letters, not form letters. There is a difference, and personal letters get noticed.

    Also, everyone here likely has a social media account - please post up asking people to write the Minister.
  10. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    The numbers are what they are. We know from the modelling where/when Fraser Chinook stocks are encountered. That is based on CWT. One problem with CWT as everyone knows is not enough clipped heads are being turned in, which means that in a low sampling year there is an "expansion factor" used to make up the statistical difference for what is likely (estimated) to be missing. So for one cell if you apply an expansion factor of 14, that will take 1 actual CWT and make that 14. While we don't like the number, it is what it is until we can get other data sources such as DNA into the mix.

    Even at that (CWT expansion factor) the estimated number of Fraser Chinook actually "harvested" is quite low. That is because there are selective fishery regulations that have been employed to help address and pass those fish through certain fisheries at times and places where we know these fish are encountered. So the Rec fishery can be scaled toward a highly selective fishery to help protect fish, while allowing a fishery to proceed.

    Having said all that....I don't think the Minister is really going to want to get into the "numbers" - best to simply state your concerns, the potential impacts, and a call to work with the public fishery to fashion a selective fishing model that creates that win/win.
    Redfisher, BCRingo and littlechucky like this.
  11. BCRingo

    BCRingo Well-Known Member

    Letter #7 sent to the minister.....
  12. donnie d

    donnie d Active Member


    Got an acknowledgment on the email which just said we’ve forwarded your email to the pacific salmon team. Took 3 minutes. Not hard, so do it.
    wildmanyeah and Derby like this.
  13. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    Yeah see I want the PMO office to not do this so I think im going to leave out the options and make it political maybe Ill write two letters.
  14. donnie d

    donnie d Active Member

    They’re prob just forwarding based on subject line. Maybe the subject line should be something different like “Whales” or “Coast Guard” or “Pyrosome abuse”

    I hope Wilkinson reads the damn letter as it was addressed to him.
  15. charlie415

    charlie415 Well-Known Member

    Here is my third letter in the last couple of weeks. One can only hope common sense prevails.

    Mr. Wilkinson

    I am writing to voice my concern about proposed reduction in daily and possession recreational limits for chinook salmon on the B.C. coast.

    My family has been fishing B.C. coastal waters and using this resource to put healthy food on our tables is of utmost importance to us.

    The science has shown that the suspension of public fishing will not alone achieve the escapement goals set out by your department. Therefore, I strongly believe that all user groups including first nations must share in the rebuilding of the once mighty chinook runs.

    Any further delay in a Pinniped harvest will worsen the crisis for the sustainability of the salmon runs and the rebuilding of salmon stocks. A Pinniped harvest must be done quickly to bring them to acceptable numbers for salmon protection.

    Herring fisheries in the Georgia Strait should be suspended until science has proven that our BC coast has recovered from the elimination of four of our six major herring runs. The unprecedented number of pinnipeds are preventing your staff from taking a test fishery. Do you think there might be a problem there?

    We must make certain that there are enough salmon that make it to the spawning grounds to ensure the rebuilding of the stocks before any netting of the river is allowed. I support a First Nations food and ceremonial harvest, but not to the detriment of the salmon. First Nations, commercial and public fisheries must share equal responsibility for the long-term survival of our salmon.

    Once the salmon have the food to sustain them, acceptable levels of pinniped predators and there is no fish farm disease to prevent their ability to make it to the spawning grounds, we must make certain that the spawning grounds are rebuilt to the state that they will support life for generations to come.

    I believe that your ministry has for years underestimated the cultural and economic importance of the public fishery to many thousands of British Columbian and I would urge you to reconsider this latest proposal.

    Continuing to discount the benefit of public fishing to the citizens and voters of B.C. would be a tragedy.
  16. el.Pereh

    el.Pereh Active Member

  17. ZENYO

    ZENYO Active Member

    Letter Sent...
  18. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Fifth letter sent this morning.
    BCRingo, ziggy and charlie415 like this.
  19. Just fishing

    Just fishing New Member

    I have just recently joined sportfishigbc and am very concerned about the public fisheries possible closure , I will write a letter and post the face book post publicly on Facebook , we must be able to show our children and grandchildren the joy's of responsible fishing.
    dmurph and bigdogeh like this.
  20. SerengetiGuide

    SerengetiGuide Well-Known Member

    Not sure how many of you follow minister Wilkinson on Facebook but sent a message on Facebook yesterday (was my letter) and was read this morning. If they read the whole thing or not, i can’t tell you. But it definitely got opened at the very least. So could be a useful way to get the message across on top of normal email letter you all send. Flood his doors with it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page